Menu

Over the past 30 years, the grip strength of men, aged 20-34, has decreased – down from an average of 117 pounds of force in 1985 to 98 pounds of force among today’s young men. For those inclined to valorize traditional definitions of masculinity, this could be seen as another sign pointing to the death of men. In fact, David French, writing at the National Review, bemoans just this point. French argues that the decline in grip strength signifies the continued distancing between men and their masculinity.

To quote French: “Our culture strips its young men of their created purpose and then wonders why they struggle. …Men were meant to be strong. Yet we excuse and enable their weakness. It’s but one marker of cultural decay, to be sure, but it’s a telling marker indeed. There is no virtue in physical decline.” [emphasis in original]

To get a sense of how our decaying culture looks, French provides this summary: “If you’re the average Millennial male, your dad is stronger than you are. In fact, you may not be stronger than the average Millennial female. You’re exactly the kind of person who in generations past had your milk money confiscated every day — who got swirlied in the middle-school bathroom. The very idea of manual labor is alien to you, and even if you were asked to help, say, build a back porch, the task would exhaust you to the point of uselessness. Welcome to the new, post-masculine reality.”

An unstated implication of this seems to be that kids no longer steal each other’s milk money nor give the wimpy kids swirlies. Perhaps this is a sign of the decay of our culture, but I’d call that progress. In fairness, I doubt French would consider a decrease in physical bullying to be a bad thing, either. His point is simply that, because men are physically weaker then previous generations, this is robbing young men of a piece of their manhood that inhibits their well-being.

Martin Kich, writing at Academeblog, gives a brief but comprehensive response to French’s piece. I direct your attention there as Kich notes a number of issues that arise, straightforwardly, from what French discusses.

I am drawing attention to French’s piece for a different reason. As with generations before them, Millennials are at that age where they stop being the kids that need protection and start being the source of all that is wrong with society. The biggest Millennial sin is a lack of toughness due to being over-coddled, and Millennial men, French’s piece as an example, are often criticized for their perceived lack of manliness.

Yet, among all the cries to cease emasculating men, you never hear worry that we’ve given up punishing Millennial men for raping women. Why is that? Are men so wimpy that they can no longer face punishment for their crimes? Have we so emasculated older generations of men that they now lack the courage, strength, and conviction to punish younger men who rape, assault, and abuse women? The answer, it seems, is a resounding ‘yes’.

What am I talking about? An 18 year-old high school student raped two peers while they were unconscious. His punishment? 2 years of probation. Citing the linked article, David Becker, the Massachusetts teen “…must remain drug and alcohol-free, submit to an evaluation for sex offender treatment and stay away from the two 18-year old victims.” That’s it. This ruling comes after the recent 6-month jail sentence for Brock Turner, the 20 year-old Stanford student who also sexually assaulted an unconscious woman. Sure, the Brock Turner case got a lot of attention, but was their outrage from those who valorize traditional forms of masculinity? I didn’t see it.

Why is that? I genuinely don’t get it. Look, I know there is resistance to concepts like ‘rape culture’. Some view the raising of alarm bells about rape and sexual assault on college campuses to be overblown. But so what? Even if you hold those views, you should still be able to see something horribly wrong in letting these men off with minor punishments for their violent crimes.

Consider the words of Thomas Rooke, the attorney for Becker, the 18 year-old high school student. Quoting Rooke: “He can now look forward to a productive life without being burdened with the stigma of having to register as a sex offender. …The goal of this sentence was not to impede this individual from graduating high school and to go onto the next step of his life, which is a college experience.”

Let’s state this again. David Becker raped two women while they were unconscious. Instead of holding him accountable, we’re bending over backwards to not burden him with facing the consequences of his actions. Talk about coddling.

In a follow up piece to his initial article about the decreased physical strength of Millennial men, David French provides a rationale for his concern. Namely, he gives examples where physical strength is a key element of performing charity and civil service. French’s defense relies on young men having more than just physical strength. It requires that they also develop character strength, and a part developing character strength requires accepting responsibility for one’s actions. The cases of Becker and Turner fall woefully short in developing these men’s character. Quite the opposite, they are efforts to free these men from their responsibilities. If you think our society is raising weak men, this should get you outraged.

Look, I understand that grip strength is a serious issue, but when it is put beside holding rapists accountable for their crimes, it begins to feel irrelevant. If your blood boils learning that the average grip strength of men has decreased over the past 30 years, please allow your blood to boil when you hear that we’re coddling convicted rapists. And please, if you are going to express your outrage about one of these, may it be toward the coddling of convicted rapists.

Thank you,
Jeff Peden, fellow man

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

[Author’s note: The website and post I discuss have since been taken down, which is a bit unfortunate. I peruse the ‘Masculinity’ tag every once in a while, and that’s where I came across this blog. I am fairly certain the author of the now defunct blog is the same one who wrote this post at A Voice for Men. You’ll note in the ‘About the Author’ section that it suggests you visit the blog I discuss here. The AVfM article was posted on Dec. 28, 2015, so the blog was still in existence then. I bring this all up to try and establish that I’m not quoting from some made up blog. I literally cut and pasted the quotes I use below, including retaining the author’s original hyperlinks. I honestly did not intend to post this after the quoted blog/post have been taken down. I started this a couple months ago and have been making little edits here and there. It’s just so happened that I took too long, and the blog and post are no longer there. Anyway, onwards and upwards.]

Let me tell you a story about three people. Scott is the quarterback of the high school football team. Robbie is a kind, quiet guy that gets good grades. Jessica is the super-hot captain of the cheer squad. Both Scott and Robbie want to date Jessica. Being maturing young men, they are both feeling the hormonal pull to hook up with a girl, and they both want Jessica to be that girl. The two boys let their interests be known, and Jessica is faced with a decision- “Do I hook up with Scott, the cute, athletic, and popular quarterback? Or do I hook up with, umm, what was his name? Bobby? I think he’s in my chemistry class. Anyway, I’m gonna make all the girls on the cheer team jealous when they find out I’m dating Scott.” And so, as Scott and Jessica go on to undoubtedly have copious amounts of sex, Robbie is left to either become the star running back on the football team, become mega-rich, or live a life of womanly-imposed celibacy due to his not being fuckable.

Apparently, this story is a functional metaphor for one of the major influences on human society, and feminists have casually gone about masking it via their gynocentric theorizing. Yes, you can laugh. A lot.

I find the concept of Hypergamy an interesting one, particularly in the way it is discussed within the Men’s Rights Movement and among anti-Feminists. Hypergamy is the ability to marry above one’s caste or socioeconomic status. In MRM commentary, hypergamy is often discussed as a privilege for women because it is something to which they have access to raise their social and economic well-being. Men, because they are expected to be the breadwinners and providers, do not have a similar course toward securing such a status. The thing is, to suggest this is a ‘privilege’ for women seriously strains the definition of privilege. If, as a society, we enforce men as the holders of status and economic power, then we disempower women from achieving it on their own. We deny women the ability to achieve such status and power by their own merit. Women are left to gain status and safety via marriage. Calling this situation a privilege is like calling slavery a privilege for the enslaved because it frees them from the burden of negotiating salaries and paying property taxes.

KKamina, writing at the blog Saint Kamina, has taken this concept of hypergamy and made an argument that it is an unacknowledged driving force behind human society and civilization. KKamina suggests that the world has issues, and “I’m beginning to seriously contemplate to what degree this is attributable to feminism and innate/subconscious female reproductive choices historically imposed on men.” The author says of his post, “…it’s didactic, but if it fosters self-awareness and moral agency all the better.” Personally, I’d say that’s a stretch. I’d call it mental-masturbation aroused by aggrandizing one’s own what-if theorizing. Put another way, I’d call it self-indulgent bullshit.

Hypergamy as Geist

The argument, using the author’s words, goes like this:

[tl;dr: Due to biological circumstances, there is evolutionary pressure on women to be selective with whom they mate, but there is not pressure on men to be similarly selective. Because of this one-direction selectivity, men must meet the standards of women to be selected as mates. Women select men who display high social status (i.e., those capable of raising a woman’s status due to hypergamy). Men toil and fight and struggle to establish their high social status and become chosen by women. As a result, women should shoulder some blame for any ill that has resulted from men toiling and struggling throughout history to meet the female demands brought about by hypergamy.]

(1) We start here: “…men may rule the world, but women rule the men who rule the world.”

(2) How? “The political may be a male dominion, but the power of the womb is hers. The mightiest of men are held in thrall for access to it. To secure any progeny, legacy, family of his own, and therefore meaningful social fulfillment, he is left little recourse than to be the supplicant.”

(3a) Why must he be a supplicant? “The evolutionary theory of parental investment, as it relates to sexual selection, predicts that the sex investing the most and having the most to lose (female) will be more selective resulting in the opposite sex (male) being more competitive and aggressive pursuing it.”

(3b) I still don’t get why men must be a supplicant: “For women to have sexual partners, they must simply exist while the male must prove himself against an ever-changing arbitrary mélange of archaic to modern chivalry tempered through female visceral urges. In modern times, a woman need only sit at a bar, smile, be attentive, sweet, and await applicants to attempt to qualify for her intimacy while she screens; she need only create a perfunctory PlentyofFish profile and be guaranteed dozens of requests for relationships and sex. In contrast, men either initiate relationships or by default stand a high probability of absolute sexual invisibility and involuntary celibacy.”

(4) But why does this cause the ills in society? “Female selectivity manifests in the visceral imperative of “hypergamy.” This refers to the tendency to seek mates of higher social status, attendant resources, and all of its trappings. In a tribal configuration, this is exhibited by the “alpha male.” Today’s society is different. Obviously, for humans interacting in complex societies, the selection process is more complex than exhibiting the confidence, courage, physical strength, and the social prowess of primacy in a hierarchy of competitive males.”

(5) Does this “visceral imperative of hypergamy” have a tangibly negative effect on men? “It has been argued that ‘the single most under-appreciated fact about gender’ is our ratio of female to male ancestors. “The typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Recent DNA research show’s today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80% reproduced, whereas only 40% of men did,” New York Times blogger Tierny explains.”

(6) Okay, but we don’t live in Viking societies anymore where men have to get on boats and row them across large bodies of water to conquer foreign civilizations. “Indeed, in the familiar ubiquitous archetype, the male goes through some ordeal. He slays the dragon or villain to rescue and get the damsel, thereby proving his worth. Nothing has changed. The onus is always on the male. Men built civilization, but they did it to impress women. Feminist egalitarian platitudes speak of equality, but the fact that married men out earn both women and unmarried men illustrates women — the “strong independent” type being no exception— remain hypergamous in their sexual selection. As a male’s income rises so too does his likelihood of marriage. After $25,000, it doubles. Women are perennially out for breadwinners. Indeed, as wages stagnate and the middle class continues to attenuate, marriage continues to decline on the bottom of the economic ladder and not the top. And to suffer the ignominy being a male homemaker is to be contemptuously conferred the status of “house bitch,” in the parlance of one feminist writer[.]” [Quick note: the “one feminist writer” was not identified. Maybe I’m just out of the loop, but I don’t know who it is.]

(7a) I’m still not certain what the implications are for modern men. “This means men are relegated to fulfilling one of two roles in modern society for sexual access (with only the latter leading to long-term meaningful social fulfillment): that of an “alpha” bad boy asshole or beta high-earning provider.”

(7b) Put another way: “[Male] striving is merely a reflection of innate female mating preferences. [Men are] modeling their lives in anticipation of female demands. From this lens, it becomes apparent that it is a male obligation, and on the other end of the spectrum, a female privilege.”

(7c) One more way: “It does not follow that there are many consequences to male sexual preferences, but female’s have immense political and economic ramifications. At the most basic level, males’ avaricious appetite for wealth and competition is rooted in male anxieties about sexual and social failure or success.”

(8a) What should be the take away from all of this: “With this understanding, it’s apparent that the mainstream (and therefore feminist) sociological lens denies female historical agency. Women are and have always constituted one half of society and therefore one half its ruling class. Thus, to what extent can we have an honest discourse on society, socio-economic forces, and indeed foreign policy without candid dialogue on gender?”

(8b) Continuing: “We cannot blame women for being hypergamous any more than we can blame men for liking the kinds of physical features they do. It’s all subconscious motivation after all. But to censure men for the crime of a knee-jerk subconsciously impelled glance in public — perpetually demonizing male libido — while not even contemplating the consequences of female hard-wiring is immoral. Don’t ya think?”

(9) The key take away: “Women are the unstated guardians of the human race. They filter out, who reproduces and who does not. If men are expected to perennially face the most hazardous work conditions with 90% of workplace deaths, compulsorily die in pointless imperialist wars, then women should at least be expected to reasonably examine their archaic 20th century male expectations.”

Phew. That was a lot of cutting and pasting. The author is less than hopeful that women will give up their “archaic 20th century male expectations,” but at least he braved the internet to try and draw attention to the destruction female sexual selectivity has wrought on us poor men.

Assessing the Argument

In the end, this sweeping assessment of history and civilization is nothing more than childish fantasy. It is reductive, ahistorical, and facile. At bottom, it is stupid.

First, this argument is so reductive it virtually erases a number of our most central fields of study. Political Science, Economics, and Sociology all reduce down to ‘dudes wanna fuck chicks but they do crazy shit because the chicks are too stuck-up and choosy.’ In being so reductive, KKamina demeans both men and women. Regarding men, the entire argument rests on the idea that the sole or, at least, overriding motivation of men’s actions is to get laid. Men don’t attain wealth, acquire leadership, or help the less-fortunate because of their personal values and ambitions. They do it because they think it will get them sex. If true, men are really fucking pathetic.

As for women, well, they aren’t much at all. In fact, they are literally just objects to be fucked. That is the only role women play in this entire assessment of a key driver of history. The only relevant factor women have is that they get to choose who they fuck. This is why women are supposed to shoulder some of the responsibility of what men have done throughout history. All of the humanness that resides in a woman — her dreams, goals, values, interests, fears, ambitions, vices– has been stripped away, and she has been reduced to an object of heterosexual male desire with a preference in sexual selectivity. It’s as if the author thinks the only thing women want is to be fucked by a man – well, fucked by a high status man. If that’s not misogynistic, I don’t know what is.

This goes further. In an early paragraph, KKamina writes, “The dominant feminist narrative of a male power structure relies on the disingenuous assumption that political power is the only form of social influence — not to speak of a non-existent cohesive male identity group consciously acting out its interests.” However, the author’s entire argument rests on the existence of a cohesive female identity group consciously acting out the exact same sexual selectivity preference. We have to accept the idea that all women want to mate, want the attention of men as mates, want the same qualities in their male mates, and would demand those qualities regardless of the consequences. This is ludicrous, not to mention hypocritical. Oh, let’s not forget that the author also insists all men are heterosexual and desire sex with women as an overriding motivation. Sorry, I just think it’s important to note that the author does the exact same thing he accuses feminists of doing. … Yup.

Second, the argument is completely ahistorical. It rests on the idea that women have had full and complete power of choice with whom they mate. This just isn’t the case. Throughout the world, historically and continued today, daughters have been a resource to families to be exchanged for dowries and other economic or political gains. Similarly, women have been spoils of war. This has happened in all regions of the world and has been a practice among the poor and the ruling classes. Far from being the selectors, women have often had their mates chosen for them, and it has primarily been men doing the choosing. The argument requires us to believe that male/female relations throughout history have basically been like the Dating Game. This is equal parts false and silly.

Throughout history, women have been subject to extreme violence over regulation of their bodies. If women just sit on pedal stools, watching men struggle to earn access to their wombs, why have they allowed themselves to be subjected to arranged marriages, foot binding, and genital mutilation? Why have women allowed themselves to be denied access to education, political enfranchisement, ownership of property, and positions of leadership? If women are going to have no property nor power, break their feet, and have their clitorises hacked off, the least they can get in return are roofs over their heads and warm meals. Don’t ya think? The hypergamy argument is supposed to be built on the social maneuverings of Machiavellian participants; however, it casts everyone involved as complete fucking idiots. These seem hard to mesh.

At this point, it should be clear that women’s sexual selective preferences are not the cause of men’s toils and struggles. In fact, the standards and values that drive men to toil and risk are not set by women at all. They’re set by men. Men risk themselves and strive for wealth and power to establish their manhood in the eyes of other men. This has often been institutionalized in the form of initiation rituals. Moreover, societies glorify warriors or teachers or leaders or athletes. They’ve called upon their men to hold these positions, and they’ve deemed women incapable of holding these honored positions by virtue of their womanhood. History is riddled with influential authors calling women inferior and incapable. If women can exert such power via withholding sexual access to their bodies, why have so many societies been so denigrating and violent toward women?

Third, the argument is internally weak. KKamina wants to suggest that male sexual selective preferences are inert while female sexual selective preferences influence male behavior. However, he explains, “To find a potential suitor, all women need do is take care of themselves physically (the termagants among them refuse even this).” This is the first internal weakness of the argument. A woman can only use sex as a tool of manipulation if men want to sleep with her. The glib line about shrews suggests the author does not think all women have been worthy of sexual pursuit. If this is the case, many women are no longer even in consideration for being influences, and those reasons have everything to do with the selective preferences of men. Put differently, the author would have us believe that a major factor influencing human civilization is the mating preferences of some pretty girls. It’s that stuck-up bitch, Jessica’s, fault.

Furthermore, withholding sex can only manipulate a man’s behavior if the sex cannot be coerced in other ways. If men hold the social, political, and economic power, if men are the providers, then women have no real bargaining chip. Sure women can withhold sex to influence the behavior of men, but men can withhold the basic necessities of survival to coerce women into sex. They can also use threats of violence or actual violence. In other words, men can exert their societal power to get sex even if women are temporarily withholding it. The author wants us to believe that women are playing some game theory strategy, but it would only work if we assume that men are not equally strategic. We know this isn’t the case. See a couple paragraphs above discussing the ways societies have exerted social, political, and physical control over women’s bodies.

Whether or not it is accurate, it seems reasonable that the investment women make in a child would lead them to be more selective with whom they mate. However, that does not mean women have ever had the power to fully enforce their selective desires. Furthermore, it doesn’t follow that what has variously constituted a high status male in human societies is the kind of male that would be selected for using purely evolutionary pressure. The fact that some (perhaps many) women prefer what we understand to be a high status male does not mean natural selection was the driving cause of that preference. Nor, frankly, does it follow that such preferences represent unadulterated “female visceral urges”.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, even if we hold the argument to be true, the best solution would be the basic goals of feminism. By equalizing the non-sexual social power between men and women, you reduce the need for women to utilize sexual selectiveness as a means of ensuring safety for themselves and their offspring. They can take on an equal share of that burden, allowing men and women to renegotiate the nature of their sexual relationships. It would be a brave new world. Certainly, the author claims that the egalitarian platitudes of feminists haven’t changed anything, but I’m not discussing platitudes. I’m discussing the actualization of feminist goals. The only way this solution fails is if women are biologically determined to select certain traits in men, and the author goes out of his way, on multiple occasions, to explain that he is not making a claim of determinism. It doesn’t guarantee Robbie will get the cheerleader, but it reduces the likelihood that he’ll spend the rest of his life only masturbating.

Yes, historically speaking, men have been subject to dangerous work that has unnecessarily cost many of their lives. Countless men have toiled in thankless and unhealthy jobs to provide. Men have started wars, fought in wars, and died in wars. Furthermore, it is certainly the case that men have done expensive, stupid, and dangerous things to impress women. But arguing that female sexual selectivity has exerted an influence on society, leading to these toils and forcing men to either be “an ‘alpha’ bad boy asshole or beta high-earning provider” is reductive, ahistorical, facile, and just plain stupid. It treats men like 13-year olds and casts women as nothing more than manipulative sex dolls. Oh, and it completely (perhaps willfully) ignores the centuries of violence women have faced.

And, seriously, if “…males’ avaricious appetite for wealth and competition is rooted in male anxieties about sexual and social failure or success,” then us men need to see a therapist and get over it. Come on, if the reason a woman won’t sleep with you is because she thinks you don’t have enough money or you’re not ‘alpha’ enough for her, you’ve got a few options: (1) find another woman (there are literally billions of them), (2) quote Meat Loaf: “I would do anything for love, but I won’t do that” or (3) wait until you’ve graduated from high school since, you know, most people grow up eventually.

We’re acting like asshats, men, and we’re doing this to ourselves. Let’s just stop.

Share this:

Like this:

I recently discovered the blog Refuting God, and the author of the blog wrote a response to 5 ways to stump atheists. The five ways to stump an atheist is a post written for the website Therefore, God Exists by Richard Bushey. All five ways are listed as questions that should be asked of atheists. As is my wont, I will try to respond to these 5 questions without being stumped. You can find Refuting God’s responses here.

To the ways of stumping:

1. Ask how they know that God has no reasons for allowing evil.

Before I even begin to explore this question, let me say that no Christian (or theist of any stripe) should just lead with this question. Asking about this must be done in response to a category of counter-apologetic arguments related to the problem of evil. Also, to ask this question, as stated, doesn’t make a good point. It is an argument from ignorance. Let’s do some quick background.

The argument from evil (google it for more discussion) is an argument against God’s existence which argues that God’s omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence should mean that there is no evil in the world. God always does good. God always knows if evil exists. God always can prevent evil. However, there is evil in the world. Therefore, the argument concludes, God does not exist. Now, a common response to this argument is to suggest that God may have a reason for allowing some evil to exist. For example, perhaps a certain amount of evil is necessary for a greater state of affairs to be so, like free will. Perhaps, for humans to have free will, there has to be an allowance for a certain amount of evil.

Bushey’s first way to stump an atheist is basically getting at this response to the argument from evil. However, his suggested question completely misunderstands argumentation. Even if an atheist does not know that God lacks reasons for allowing evil to exists does not establish the fact that God actually does have reasons for allowing evil to exist. So, don’t ask how the atheist knows there are no reasons. Say there are reasons and defend them.

However, Bushey’s treatment of this subject is even worse. Consider his first line about this topic: “Atheists like to say that if God did not exist, there would be no evil and suffering.” This completely misunderstands the argument from evil. In fact, it gets the argument completely backwards. If atheists thought evil and suffering would disappear were God to not exist, then the presence of evil and suffering would be evidence in support of God’s existence. The argument is that, as God is defined, it seems strange that we should experience suffering. It isn’t a complete defeater, but the suggestion that God may have reasons to allow suffering in light of achieving greater goods certainly undercuts the argument from evil. However, if you’re going to make this argument, the burden falls upon you to show why this is the case. It doesn’t fall upon the atheist to show why it is not the case unless she wants to further the argument from evil. At best, Bushey needs to rewrite his suggested question.

Going further, Bushey uses examples like caring for pets and children. We may require our children to get vaccines, and this may scare the children. However, that temporary suffering is permissible, in the long run, because it facilitates a greater good. Reworking his discussion of human’s relationship to their pets, Bushey notes that “[we] may think [God is] torturing [us], from [our] limited perspective.” Again, this does not defeat the argument from evil. It simply undercuts it. However, when argued in this way, it raises another concern. One has to claim to have a reasonable ability to assess God’s motives and the nature of good and evil if one is going to claim that God has good reasons for permitting the existence of suffering. If you are going to argue that we are not smart enough to know God’s motives, you are weakening your own argument. The argument basically becomes a shot in the dark: like a pet dog that simply does not have the capacity to understand what is going on. Yes, God may be permitting suffering for a reason that we simply cannot comprehend. That may be correct. However, God may force us to suffer unnecessarily because God is malevolent or just careless. If we lack the capacity to establish that the first of these two scenarios is actually happening, then the response is pretty desperate.

2. Ask what they would accept as evidence for God’s existence.

Bushey’s treatment of this way of stumping atheists seems to suggest he is unaware that there are more atheists than David Silverman and Christopher Hitchens. He says that atheists want evidence, but then says that Silverman and Hitchens state that nothing will convince them. First, I am neither David Silverman nor Christopher Hitchens. Second, if these two gentlemen say that nothing will convince them, how are they stumped when you ask them what will convince them? They provided you an answer. Nothing.

What Bushey means to say is that atheists are hypocrites because they claim to want evidence but hold that no evidence will convince them. Calling someone is hypocrite isn’t stumping them. It’s calling them a hypocrite. Also, since it is relevant to this method of stumping atheists, the overwhelming majority of atheists are neither David Silverman nor Christopher Hitchens. This “way of stumping atheists” is nothing more than Bushey pitching a childish fit by over-generalizing these two men’s statements.

Now, I’ve discussed this question briefly when I answered the questions from Matt Slick’s CARM website. There, I gave the most honest answer I can give. Here, let me give some examples of evidence that would incline me to believe God exists: (1) God appearing before me in an unambiguous way. I’m willing to be flexible on how God “appears.” The keys are that it is God and it is unambiguous. (2) A proxy of God appearing before me in an unambiguous way (e.g., an angel). (3) I have a first-hand experience of an unambiguous miracle, especially one that genuinely benefits people (e.g., a large river suddenly parts, permitting myself and others to escape some disaster with our lives).

Arguments for and against God’s existence are not definitive because they build around gaps in our knowledge. Ultimately, there are open questions and the arguments move into the realms of probabilities – this or that is more likely on the basis of a God existing/not existing. As such, I doubt any argument will convince me. If something convinces me that a God exists, it will most likely be an experience.

3. Ask if they would believe in miracles if they saw one.

In discussing this subject, Bushey basically claims that atheists deny miracles to a fault. In support of this, he shares a story of a friend who claims that he would still “not believe it” (not sure if ‘it’ is the truth of Christianity or the truth that miracles happen) even if the clouds suddenly rearranged themselves to read ‘The Bible is God’s word.’ I’ve encountered atheists who say similar things. If the clouds really did rearrange themselves in such a manner, and I was there to witness it without any ambiguities, I’d find it pretty darn convincing. Also, I would wager most atheists would find it convincing if they experienced such an event first hand. Even the one’s who claim they would not.

The thing is, when we hear stories about miracles from relatively modern times, they’re not of things like clouds spontaneously rearranging to proclaim God’s existence. They’re claims to weeping statues or being the sole survivor in a disaster. In other words, they have natural explanations as well. Furthermore, they’re other people’s stories. Humans are notoriously bad at remembering things, and we’re happy to fill in gaps to create narratives, even subconsciously. As such, stories about miracles are hard to trust. Skepticism is very much warranted in the face of proclaimed miracles. Frankly, if one believes God is performing miracles, such a person should embrace a strong skepticism. What makes a miracle miraculous is how utterly special and impossible it is.

In my previous answer, I said that experiencing a miracle first hand would be pretty convincing evidence that God exists. As such, this question doesn’t stump me. I’d be happy to believe in miracles, especially if I saw one. However, I am highly skeptical of claims of miracles, and I have not been convinced of one, nor have I experienced one. This is not because I refuse to believe in them. It is because my reasonably high threshold for belief in miracles has not been met. This is why I make it a point to say there are no ambiguities. If the clouds suddenly rearranged themselves to read ‘The Bible is God’s work,’ my initial reaction would be that it was a neat trick, and I would be very curious as to how it was accomplished. If, after rigorous investigation, it was determined that no human could pull it off and there was no natural method that could be discovered, I’d be happy to call that a miracle. The fact that I wouldn’t immediately drop to my knees and proclaim my faith in the Christian God does not make me unreasonably resistant. It just means I think a miracle should be an actual miracle.

4. Ask them if the cause of nature could be natural.

Yes. Yes it could.

In all honesty, this is a very confused section because Bushey makes no effort to define his terms. This is his entire discussion in his post:

“The atheist will usually want to say that everything in the universe can be explained in natural terms. But what about nature itself? A man cannot be his own father. Nature cannot cause itself. It did not exist prior to its’ existence. Before nature existed, it had no causal properties. Therefore, there must have been cause beyond nature to bring it into existence. The cause of nature, therefore, must be supernatural. Nature could not have caused itself to exist any more than a man could be his own father. So ask the atheist if the cause of nature could be natural. STUMPED.”

Statements like “Nature cannot cause itself” and “The cause of nature, therefore, must be supernatural” are meaningless without explanation and definition. Bushey is basically referencing cosmological arguments without laying any definitional groundwork. For example, consider pantheism. If pantheism is true, everything is god. God and God-ness are natural. Obviously, this isn’t a strictly atheistic response. My point is simply that flinging about unsupported and undefined statements doesn’t achieve anything.

The most egregious omission from Bushey’s discussion is an explanation for why the supernatural does not require a cause. Because he constructs the argument in terms of the natural and the supernatural, the whole thing basically turns into Bushey making bare assertions. I understand why people argue that God doesn’t need to be caused. God is said to be eternal. But the supernatural? Why does the supernatural not need a cause? Maybe Bushey has an answer. We just don’t know. He only makes assertions like they’re supposed to be obviously true.

I mentioned that Bushey is referencing cosmological arguments. In particular, I take him to be referencing the argument from contingency. Yes, the things in the universe certainly are contingent. Interestingly, we’ve devised some pretty amazing cosmological models that account for all the stuff in the universe, and none of them make an appeal to the supernatural. They come in forms that are time eternal and with beginnings to the universe. The argument from contingency says that the correct model, assuming it exists, is still contingent. This is debatable. Certainly, our explanatory chain has to end somewhere; however, I see no reason why that non-contingent thing has to be special in any way. A self-contained, natural system can just exist. You can ask why it should exist at all, but “it just does” is a perfectly sufficient answer.

5. Ask them if they believe people who do bad things deserve to be punished.

Should we punish people who do bad things? Yes, and we’ve devised an entire criminal system to do so.

But that’s the rationale for why Hell exists. Checkmate, atheist.

This is my summary of Bushey’s discussion of this topic. He doesn’t argue that morals can’t be grounded without God. He doesn’t suggest that moral laws require a law giver. Instead, he argues that the rationale of punishing people who do bad things is the rationale for the existence of Hell. I’ll be honest. I am stumped. I’m stumped as to how Bushey thinks this is a relevant point.

Here’s his concluding sentence: “In answering this question in the affirmative, they [atheists] are conceding the rationale for the doctrine of Hell.” Sure. I also believe triangles have three sides, so I’m conceding the shape of the Holy Trinity. Eureka! God exists!

Bushey’s discussion of this “way to stump an atheist” is utterly pointless. He must have forgotten to cut-and-paste in a paragraph where he explains how, to truly ‘deserve’ punishment, one must be judged by a perfect being. Otherwise, this whole argument is mindbogglingly dumb.

Leaving Stumptown

Bushey concludes his article with the following line (bold and italics in original):

Atheists are afraid to comment on this article because they are stumped by all of these questions.

Appropriately, there are two sets of responses in the comments to that article.

Share this:

Like this:

It was written a year ago, so I’m late to the party. Also, to be fair, it’s kind of an easy target. However, I just saw a post tagged with ‘Masculinity’ that positively linked to this post by David Goetsch entitled ‘Neutering the Male of the Species: The Feminization of American Society,’ and it prompted me to respond. In his post, Goetsch asks: “[W]hy do so many men in America feel compelled to apologize for…for what…for being men?” This may come as no surprise considering the title of his post, but Goetsch says, “The answer to this question is simple: Feminists are neutering the American male and the American male is letting it happen.” During my undergraduate years, I minored in Gender and Women’s Studies. Apparently, I was at risk daily, as it meant I was surrounded by feminists. But let me tell you, not once did a feminist attempt to neuter me.

Goetsch’s article is an unpleasant little piece of fantasy and conspiracy that still finds a way to squeeze in some anti-Muslim bile as well. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can cram so much hatred into so few words. Goetsch’s argument can be summed up in this passage: “Bowing to the strident sniping of radical feminists, men have allowed themselves to be transformed into a bunch of wimpy eunuchs who, rather than stand their ground, have ceded their manhood to women who want to be men.” What is lost when men are “transformed into a bunch of wimpy eunuchs”? Goetsch doesn’t expressly give a response, but you get the idea when he says, “In fact, there are lots of things women do better than men, but things that require physical strength and native aggression are not among them.” In fact, most of the post is about how men’s aggressive and violent nature is key to protecting and preserving the good.

This is what prompts me to ask, when did men stop being men? Following Goetsch’s logic, the sniping of radical feminists has caused us to make a radical shift in our society toward one that undermines the masculine. This indoctrination is claimed to happen as early as kindergarten and continues throughout the 12 years of the American education system. Well, Feminism has been around for awhile, and Goetsch certainly talks as though this social restructuring isn’t new. So, when did men stop being men? Well, Goetsch helps us answer this question in his first paragraph. In his opening, Goetsch praises men being men. He praises the men who fought the American Revolution. He praises the men who fought against the Axis in World War II. He praises the men who rebuilt the NYC skyline after the terrorist attacks on 9-11. Well, the One World Trade Center building was completed in July 2013. Remember, our question is: when did men stop being men. According to Goetsch’s first paragraph, the answer is “sometime in the last two years.” Of course, men did win the most recent Super Bowl, so it all probably fell apart in February or March of this year.

See, this is what makes Goetsch’s argument so mind-bogglingly dumb. He laments the feminization of men, yet he praises contemporary men for their manliness. You can’t have it both ways, dude. When did men stop being men? They didn’t. More importantly, he is completely blind to the ways his words demonstrate the need for Feminism. The American Revolution was inspired by the resistance to tyranny set up by men. The evils of Nazi Germany were wrought by men. The attackers on 9-11 were men. Perhaps a little feminizing of that “native aggression” would prevent some of these tragedies brought about by men. Furthermore, Goetsch completely acknowledges that women have been successful and important participants in society. As he puts it, “I take nothing away from women who also played significant roles in all of these examples.” In a sense, this is the point of Feminism. 1. Setting masculinity as socially primary diminishes the value and place of women to the detriment of everyone. 2. Allowing women place and participation does not bring about our downfall. 3. Therefore, we should end our masculine-centered social structure in favor of one that is egalitarian. For all his delusional ranting and raving, Goetsch makes a pretty good case for feminism.

A common theme among people like Goetsch is the claim that Feminism destroys men. As someone who is prone to pedantic diatribes, you’d think I’d have noticed this in my years of connection to Feminism. Heck, I was even embedded in the place Feminism is most supposed to flourish – a socially-liberal, liberal arts college. I’ve never felt personally destroyed as a man, nor have I ever felt my manhood under threat. Frankly, I don’t understand the claim at all. But if I had to guess at it, I think this comes down to the fact that I don’t consider my being a man as much of a status of personal identification. I tend to think more broadly. I will write about this in a different post, but what it boils down to is the fact that my concerns aren’t with ‘being a man.’ I’m not really sure how to not be a man. What is a man? Someone who self-identifies as a man. What is manly? That which is done by someone who self-identifies as a man. My concerns are with being a good person, and these are more broad and variable in expression. At bottom, I see no intrinsic status in being a man, so I have no problem with ridding ourselves of the social privilege I am afforded by virtue of being a man. I am still free to be myself, even in ways that are traditionally masculine. My masculinity is just no longer privileged nor a guarantor of anything beyond what would be afforded to anyone. I’m not sure if that all makes sense, so I’ll have to flesh it out in a future post.

Just remember, men stopped being men on Sunday, February 1, 2015 when Malcolm Butler intercepted that pass. Us men have been neutered ever sense. Nice call, Pete Carroll.

***Other Thoughts***

I will credit Goetsch for this: “strident sniping” is a fantastic oxymoronic phrase.

Share this:

Like this:

In case you missed it, Marco Aurelio Cunha, the co-coordinator for women’s soccer in Brazil, credited increased feminization for the growth of the women’s game. Here is a portion from his interview with the Globe and Mail:

“Now the women are getting more beautiful, putting on make-up. They go in the field in an elegant manner,” he said in a telephone interview from Montreal, where he is accompanying the Brazilian side. “Women’s football used to copy men’s football. Even the jersey model, it was more masculine. We used to dress the girls as boys. So the team lacked a spirit of elegance, femininity. Now the shorts are a bit shorter, the hair styles are more done up. It’s not a woman dressed as a man.”

I have a confession to make. Cunha is totally correct. Though I’ve long been a fan of women’s soccer, my interest has grown as the game has gotten more feminine. I guess it just appeals to my heterosexual manness. Since I know you’re doubting me, please allow me to submit a few pieces of evidence in defense of Mr. Cunha from his very own country’s lady players:

1. They embody submissiveness. So passive.

2. They exemplify female intuition.

3. The women are graceful and elegant.

4. Beautiful. They’re just so beautiful.

Of course, ever the pedant, I have to disagree with Cunha on one point. When women’s soccer is this feminine, it needs no make-up:

Go support your local women’s soccer team and bask in the gentle elegance of their femininity.

Share this:

Like this:

It got a 92% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s right up my alley – gorgeous, heady, well-acted, interesting topic, sparse. Yet, I just didn’t like this film. It was meh – at times laughably meh, even.

My five word review: Pretty, but I read Frankenstein.

As always, there may be spoilers.

Here’s the thing, the more I think about the movie, the more I want to like it. It’s just…I don’t. It was boring. At bottom, I think this is a snoozer of a plot buttressed by gorgeous film making. Let me be clear, I like slow, cerebral films. I just didn’t like this one.

Where the movie is supposed to shine is in its commentary on humanity. Quoting a review from Amber Wilkinson: “The pleasure of Garland’s film lies more in the deeper questions of what makes us ‘human’… than in the plot, which suffers from predictability.” Yes, the film is very predictable. However, the ‘deeper questions’ are also predictable, and this is because we all had to read this film in high school: Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.

Don’t get me wrong, Ex Machina is not a retelling of Frankenstein. The set up of Ex Machina is quite different to that of Shelley’s novel. The moral of the story, however, is kinda the same. I didn’t know much about this movie before I saw it. I had no expectations going in, and I saw it on a whim. I wish I hadn’t. I wish I’d known more about the film. I think that would have helped. The minimalism of the film puts the content front and center, but the content fell flat for me.

Above, I mentioned that this film is buttressed by gorgeous film making. I can’t say this enough. The cinematography was stunning. There is this nice blending of the organic with the inorganic throughout the film. The acting was superb. Hat’s off to Oscar Isaac. I hated his character. I mean it. I genuinely disliked him. However, he never felt pantomime. He never felt clichéd. He was real, genuine assholery.

On another day, under different circumstances, I think I could have enjoyed this film. I even suggest you go see it. It doesn’t need to be seen in a theater, but the visuals are worthy of the big screen. Unfortunately, if I’m being honest, I’m just not convinced you’re missing anything if you miss this film.

There may be spoilers below. There may not be. I haven’t fully planned this post. However, there’s not much to spoil. ***Spoiler Alert*** Mad Max movie has car-based action sequences. See what I mean?

Here’s how I would describe this movie: Start with the long take that opens Touch of Evil and combine it with the chase scene in Bullitt. Next, sprinkle in countless explosions, guns, pole vaults, chained-together nipple rings, a baddie named Immortan Joe, and post-apocalyptic cars. There you have it – Mad Max: Fury Road. The movie leaves you exhausted and in need of a tetanus shot – which is the desired outcome of seeing an over-the-top action film.

There was some minor “controversy” among the Men’s Rights Movement because this film has a woman as a main character. I know. I nearly man-fainted when I heard the news, too. In all fairness to the guy who posted the initial anti-Furiosa rant, he hadn’t actually seen the movie when he was ranting, so his points were just made up out of misogynistic hatred. He can’t really be faulted for being inaccurate about the film.

Here’s the thing, this movie isn’t radically feminist. It isn’t regressive, per se, but there’s no feminist manifesto here. This film is upsetting MRAs because it actually has a reason to have a woman in the cast.

Hell, the roles played by women are mostly traditional. They are “breeders,” custodians of “the green place”, and the givers of compassion. In other words, they’re all mothers of one sort or another. However, when push comes to shove, one woman can beat a motherfucker (with the help of a bunch of other women and a mechanical arm). Consider this line from the MRA rant: “This is the Trojan Horse feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things, including physique, strength, and logic.” For all that is over-the-top in this film, this line is inaccurate. The women in the film do not equal the men in physique and strength. Not even close. They are equal in logic and driving skills. So, when we boil down the actual movie, the feminist “trope” is that women can be decent drivers. This puts the film on par with the radical feminism of NASCAR.

Anyway, this film is non-stop action. I mean it. It is relentless. Go see it, in 3D, on the biggest screen you can find. I’m not a big action film guy. I’m not a Mad Max fan boy (though I will admit to watching Beyond Thunderdome a bunch when I was young). I am just a guy who can enjoy a good film, even when it is an action film with icky girls in it.

[Edit] Here are two more reviews of the film that more explicitly call the film feminist. They do a better job of explaining what I mean by “It isn’t regressive, per se, but there’s no feminist manifesto here.”

2. From The Filmology I want to single out this quote from the Filmology’s review:

‘This film isn’t “feminist propaganda” as some people might accuse it to be. We as a film-viewing society have just forgotten that women can be leading action ladies and kick ass and be awesome, without any superfluous romantic subplots or gratuitous nudity moments. These women are portrayed as humans, saviours, sisters, mothers, friends and heroes, and they never have their femininity under threat because that isn’t an issue. The fact that they are women is just an uncompromisable fact that doesn’t deter their pursue of justice and freedom, and for that I salute George Miller because in the midst of all the pumped up, overly masculinised, masturbatory action films of the past many years, it is fantastic to see that this kind of story can still be get majorly released and be a success.’

Share this:

Like this:

I want to write a formal apology to my first, long-term, serious, romantic relationship. We met in college. We’d met our first year at school, but we started dating our sophomore year. I was immediately attracted to her. My current partner says she was the prettiest girl on campus. I’m saying that to brag, but, really, who’s counting? She was funny and interesting. We had common interests, common political leanings. She taught me to appreciate the depth of the Beatles’ oeuvre, and I introduced her to the magnificence that is David Bowie.

She studied Chemistry. That was her passion. She was wicked smart, but she was also dedicated. She would spend hours in the lab pushing herself to understand the material more. The thing is, she also took courses in sociology, political science, and literature. Sorry, she excelled in such classes. Like I said, she was wicked smart.

Finally, she had a sparkling personality. I’ve already mentioned that she was funny, but she was also kind and exuberant. It’s not quite right to call her active – she was book worm, but she had a joie de vivre.

Let me be clear, I am purposefully giving a positive portrayal of her. I am not trying to make her seem perfect. I just want to give a thorough impression of the positive and admirable character traits that she possessed. Our relationship did not last our undergraduate careers, but I feel safe in saying it was a relationship we can both look back upon and conclude that it produced some very fond memories.

Or, that’s what I thought. You see, I recently learned that I messed up. Look at this flyer:

This flyer was posted at a Wisconsin public high school. It is telling the boys in the school that they should not have premarital sex with their dates on prom night. Instead, these boys should protect the character of their dates.

You see, I left a very important part of our relationship out of my recap above. We never got married, but we had sex. Feel free to pause and compose yourself, dear reader. Trust me, my self-hatred is stronger than any shock, disgust, or disappointment you’re feeling toward me right now.

Go back and read about that wonderful girl that I dated in college. Go back and read about all of her positive traits. After college, she went on to complete a PhD in Chemistry, and she is currently a research associate at King’s College in London.

None of that matters, though. Does it? She’s broken. She’s ruined. I know that she is a separate human being from myself, and that she has gone on to live her own life since we broke up, but she’s a woman. I am the man. It was MY responsibility to protect her character, and I failed. She used to be bright and funny and exuberant. No longer. I ruined her. I’m not quite sure what she is now. I just know it is not good.

Arun, I am sorry.

To make up for my mistake, I promise to be a better person – no, a better man. You’re a woman, so you can’t be fixed. You are broken forever. I broke you. That is something I have to live with for the rest of my life. But I promise you that I will never do that again. Well, starting now, I promise that I will never do that again. I will never let my actions ruin the character of another woman again. I know I can accomplish this because I can rely upon the strength, courage, and determination that you used to possess – that I took away from you. This is my payment for my past offenses. This is the new me – the penitent man.

Share this:

Like this:

Two very different topics for this post. The first topic is, I think, cool and important. The second is an otherwise pointless rant I need to get out of my mind by committing it to this blog. No, seriously, it is an incredibly pointless rant.

Although my taste in music is relatively broad, it is mostly stuck in the 80’s and 90’s. As such, I will readily admit that I may be under-informed on the possible meanings of various lines in the song. However, I am baffled as to how someone could consider this a song about reparations.

If you read the piece at HuffPo, the author offers not a single line or quote from Rihanna making such a connection. The only people quoted actually talking about reparations are Azealia Banks and Ta-Nehisi Coates, neither of whom have any connection to the song. The connection #BBHMM has to reparations appears to be as tenuous as having a similar tone to the one Azealia Banks had in her recent interview with Playboy Magazine in which she discusses reparations.

If I prime you with a suggestion of reparations, lines like “Bitch better have my money” and “Pay me what you owe me, don’t act like you forgot” could be seen as connected to reparations. However, if you just read the lyrics without prompt, it is hard to find such a commentary. Again, I am open to being corrected, but the song seems pretty straightforwardly about Rihanna asserting her position as a top female performer, demanding her money (respect and recognition) and warning other artists hoping to displace her in the pantheon of top female artists that they need to check themselves.

Such a reading of her song makes much more sense and seemingly better accommodates lines like “Ballin’ bigger than LaBron” and “Louis XIII and it’s all on me, n***a you just bought a shot/ Kamikaze if you think that you gon’ knock me off the top.” Or consider this line: “Every time I drive by, I’m the only thing you’re playin'”. Again, please correct me/inform me if I am missing something, but I do not see how these lines have anything to do with reparations.

Why has this article been bugging me so much today? Because the author sets the stage with these lines:

“I also think this song is a powerful and politically charged anthem calling for reparations owed by white America for the wrongs and the legacy of slavery. …I haven’t been able to listen to the track without considering the powerful implications it has for this particular moment in popular culture. We are living in a time where it is impossible to dismiss the legacies of colonialism, slavery and violence, which shape lives and worlds in the present.”

That’s some pretty highfalutin talk. I agree that the legacies of colonialism, slavery, and violence have shaped the world in ways that justify considering radical forms of reparation. I agree that popular culture can have an important role in larger social discussion of such topics. I just don’t see how #BBHMM fits this billing. To describe the song as “powerful” and “politically charged” does a disservice to songs that are actually, you know, “powerful” and “politically charged.” And let me be clear, I’m not trying to pass judgment on the quality of the song nor Rihanna’s ability as a singer. I’m just passing judgment on the author of the post for suggesting that this song is about reparations.

You know, as I’ve typed this, I’ve been thinking about the text the author received from her “close friend and hip hop scholar”: “Can we think of bbhmm as a reparations song?” Perhaps the author of the text has something completely different in mind. For example, if I got myself worked up while giving an impassioned defense of reparations, I could see how this song may be a bit cathartic, even if it didn’t quite capture my feelings. Perhaps this is what the author of the text meant by it being a “reparations song”. But, is this song “about” reparation? I just don’t see it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Share this:

Like this:

From Noel Oyango’s blog, I came across a couple posts [first, second] from the blog of Dr. Robert Gullberg suggesting what a Christian might say to an atheist to demonstrate the fact of God’s existence. The two suggestions are arguments by analogy. Noel responds to the second argument in his post. It is the classic argument from design. Responses can be found throughout the internet. Instead, I want to focus on the argument in his first post.

First, a Clarification

The post starts by attempting to show the difference between an agnostic and an atheist. Unfortunately, Gullberg simply says the same thing twice. Here are the quotes:

There has been a lot of digital ink spilled about the proper definition of an atheist versus an agnostic, and it will likely never be resolved. Gullberg appears to be referring to a difference between the weak atheistic claim (which some people call agnostic) and the strong atheistic claim. However, his two statements say the exact same thing. They are both the weak atheistic claim.

In short, the weak claim is simply a personal claim: I lack belief in a god or gods. So long as you are being truthful, this claim is irrefutable. It doesn’t rely on there being no gods. It simply relies on you truthfully not believing/not thinking that one exists.

Alternatively, one could make a strong claim, something like: I believe no gods exist. Whereas the weaker claim simply denotes a belief you do not possess, the stronger claim reflects a belief you do, actually, hold. Namely, you believe there are no gods. The truthfulness of this claim requires more than your being honest about holding it. It requires you to support it with evidence.

So, if I am understanding Gullberg correctly, the beginning of his post should read something like:

What DO You Say to an Atheist?

Gullberg begins his post by suggesting that an atheist may ask a Christian (or any theist) what evidence they have for God’s existence. Gullberg’s two posts are the answer. However, he first notes that you could ask the question back to the atheist.

You might ask the atheist, “What evidence have you found that proves to you that there isn’t a God? Good question. They won’t be able to answer it. (emphasis in original)

First, I will assume he is asking this question of the strong atheist, as the weak atheist/agnostic isn’t really compelled to answer it. They can simply reply that they have not been shown evidence to believe a god exists; hence, they lack belief that one exists.

Now then, whether or not an atheist can answer the question depends on what Gullberg means by “evidence you have found.” Take a globyippy, for example. What evidence can be found that demonstrates globyippies do not exist? You cannot answer the question because you do not know what a globyippy is. If they don’t exist, you can’t find evidence of their nonexistence. ‘Find’ seems to be the wrong verb to use.

The evidence an atheist would “find” proving there isn’t a god would necessarily rely on how God is defined and conceptualized. For example, it would have to start from how God is being defined and show that (1) God’s qualities are self-refuting – e.g., can God create a burrito so hot even he cannot eat it?, or (2) that what follows from God’s qualities is incompatible with the actual world – e.g., the argument from evil or (3) argue that the definition of God is incoherent – e.g., Ignosticism. This may not exhaust all categories, but you get the idea.

It should come as no surprise that theists have offered responses to these kinds of arguments, and it is very likely that being convinced – one way or the other – depends on your prior commitments. To be completely honest, I suspect there just cannot be a slam dunk argument for/against God’s existence. Personally, I find that a strike against God, but I take my own point about prior commitments.

My point is, because of the kind of being God is (at least based on traditional definitions), any “evidence” an atheist can provide will be in the form of an argument. Although Gullberg may not be convinced by the arguments, it is quite the overstatement to suggest that an atheist would be unable to provide an argument. If you want to find some of these arguments, again, the internet is full of them.

You Should Tell Your Facts it is not Polite to Point

Gullberg moves into his discussion of what you should tell the atheist with a rather provocative statement: “All the facts point to a Supreme Being of infinite intelligence.” It is a statement that begs for further elucidation. There is none forthcoming from Gullberg. Instead, he quotes the following passage from the Bible: “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” Per this collection of commentaries on the passage in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, the passage is conveying a call to put claims to the test, either spiritual claims or claims in general. Keep those which are true and abandon those which are false. So, I should expect Gullberg to provide true facts that truly point to a Supreme Being of infinite intelligence. If the facts don’t point there, we should, presumably, abandon it.

What Does Gullberg Tell Me, the Atheist?

Gullberg suggests the Christian should tell the atheist two things. He may suggest other things can be told, but these are the two he has listed. I assume he considers them important or convincing.

The first thing he wants to say to the atheist is a sort of argument from artistry:

“Similarly, when you look around at a sunrise, or some incredible part of nature, what do you see? You see amazing art and imagery. Tell me, if art and beautiful photographs are created by mere human artists and photographers, would you not think that there is a Magnificent Designer or Grand Intelligent Artist of the universe around us who is behind the production of Nature? Of course!” (emphasis in original)

First, let me try to attack some of the intuitive pull this argument might have for a believer. Let’s start with the intuitive desire to consider beauty as evidence of God. Ask yourself, if the world wasn’t beautiful, would you consider that evidence against God’s existence? I don’t know why you would.

You might also suggest that a beautiful thing cannot arise by accident. However, I think that is quite easily falsified. Consider this exploration of flight paths as an example. The flight paths were not designed to be beautiful, but they turned out to have a beauty to them by chance. So, my first point is that God does not have to create a beautiful universe to maintain a reason to believe in God. Two, a beautiful thing can arise by accident.

Why do I make these points? Gullberg asks if an artistic but natural landscape should cause us to suggest a Supreme Being of infinite intelligence, and his answer is “Of course!” My two points don’t demonstrate he is wrong, but they should demonstrate that the answer is not that obvious. God is not required to make things beautiful, and beautiful things could arise without intending them to arise.

Finally, before I directly address Gullberg’s argument, I want to mention something that could be brought up here. Gullberg could suggest that beauty is a sort of thing that requires God to exist. But he hasn’t. His argument isn’t that beauty requires God. His argument is that natural beauty is akin to art, and art requires an artist. As such, trying to suddenly bring in some argument about whether or not beauty can exist without a God would be changing the argument completely. He can write another blog post and make the argument, but he can’t slide it in here.

Two Responses to Gullberg

I want to provide two responses to Gullberg. The first will be pedantic but further undercut Gullberg’s claim. The second, I think, is more defeating.

I said my first point is pedantic, and it truly is. However, it serves a purpose. Remember, Gullberg suggests the facts point to the existence of a Supreme Being of infinite intelligence. However, nothing about Gullberg’s argument suggests the existence of a Supreme Being of infinite intelligence. For example, if I grant the first three premises, we only need a being capable of creating natural beauty. This doesn’t seem to require being supreme nor infinite intelligence. These “facts” merely point to a good enough being with some artistic prowess. Per 1 Thessalonians, we are called to only hold the good. His argument isn’t good. At least, it is not good yet. He needs more facts. If they aren’t forthcoming, we can safely abandon his claims.

Now, I want to offer a more substantive response to his argument. At bottom, his argument makes a false analogy. I would even suggest it makes a category error. The issue arises in Premise 2. Gullberg argues that natural beauty is like pedestrian art, and art requires an artist. However, beauty is not art.

A beach, no matter how beautiful it my be, does not do these things. It was not made beautiful toward some end. At the very least, this end is far from self-evident. You might want to suggest the beach communicates emotion, but it would be more accurate to say it elicits emotion. You may feel emotions when you see the beach; however, child abuse likely makes you feel emotion too, and I suspect you don’t think child abuse is art. It isn’t enough for something to make you feel emotion for something to qualify as art.

Gullberg is already on weak ground in suggesting that natural beauty is like art. However, this false analogy can be made more striking. The real meat of Gullberg’s argument is found in this passage:

“You look at a Renoir, and you’d think you were there in the picture. Amazing. Looking at a painting, you’d know that there was a brilliant creator of the painting. We humans elevate the level of a famous painter to incredible levels. And really all the painter is doing is copying the nature around them. …[B]ut let’s be honest, pictures and paintings don’t do being there any justice. Ansel Adams did phenomenal black and white pictures in his day, but sorry, no comparison to the actual nature, right?” (emphasis in original)

Gullberg wants to emphasize that art is simply a copy of nature, and nature is better to look at. Nature is the true source of art, according to Gullberg. However, since art requires an artist, nature similarly requires an artist. The issue in Gullberg’s argument is that he is confusing beauty with art.

In the quote above, Gullberg references Ansel Adams. His post includes Adams’s famous photograph of Half Dome. When Gullberg suggests that Adams’s photograph of Half Dome cannot compare to seeing Half Dome in person, he may be correct about the beauty of Half Dome, but he is not obviously correct about Half Dome as art.

Consider the following two pictures. The first is Adams’s photograph, the second is a satellite photograph of Half Dome.

Ansel Adams’s Moon and Half Dome

Satellite photo from Google Earth. Half Dome at marker.

The latter picture is a more accurate representation of Half Dome. It provides a more complete picture of the rock structure; it situates it in more of its setting; it uses the correct colors. In short, the latter is a more accurate copy of the reality. Truthfully, even from such a high vantage point, the beauty of the region is clear. However, we would not call the satellite photo more artistic than Adams’s photograph. Quite the opposite.

What makes Adams’s photo ‘art’ is the ways in which he has deviated from the natural beauty. He has taken reality and composed it into art. Adams de-saturated the color to black and white. He cut out most of the context of the rock structure. He processed the photograph such that it would emphasize the contrast of hues. None of this would be present to the naked eye.

Yes, Adams captures the beauty of Half Dome. However, he makes no attempt to accurately recreate that natural beauty. He deviates from it and adjusts that natural beauty to compose a piece of art. This is the fundamental difference between beauty and art. Beauty is a quality something possesses. Art is an activity and the product of that activity. Art may be beautiful, but it is not a requirement of art.

Gullberg’s analogy doesn’t follow. A naturally beautiful scene is not analogous to a piece of art, even a piece of art recreating that naturally beautiful scene. There is an intention to art that is not present in natural beauty. As I noted above, beauty can arise without intention. As such, whereas a work of art requires an artist, a naturally beautiful scene does not. The “facts” just don’t point to that Supreme Being of infinite intelligence.

Taking Off the Gloves for a Moment

Thus far, I have tried to treat this argument with respect. Having responded to it, I want to be a little more blunt about my feelings toward it. Frankly, it is infantile and borderline demeaning. I’ve tried to construct a credible argument from his post, but Gullberg does little more then assert his point and use exclamation points as evidence.

In his second post, Gullberg recaps his argument from artistry as follows:

“The painter paints a landscape. The observer “oohs and aahs” about the beauty of the painting, complimenting the painter on his or her creativity. The landscape itself should be the center of the adulation. After all, an incredibly intelligent and inventive Creator allows the painter to be able to copy His work. A fool would say that there is no Creator of the actual landscape (nature or human) that the gifted painter paints!” (emphasis in original)

This is obviously false. We can “ooh and aah” about the craft of painting without having to praise the source of what was painted. Consider fruit in a bowl. An artist could paint that fruit in the bowl, and we could praise the artist for their work. However, Gullberg’s argument would suggest that the fruit in the bowl truly deserves the praise because it is the source of the art. Really? Am I supposed to believe that? Furthermore, if someone else set up the fruit in the bowl, would we suggest that the person doing the setting up is the person who actually deserves the praise? This would be the conclusion of Gullberg’s argument. Personally, I find that silly, but remember, according to Gullberg, I am the fool.